Using the Help about Inbound Links
In the Help references, on the "Inbound Links and Search Results Explained" page, under the paragraph heading "How to get inbound links, second paragraph, it says "... emphasis on hyperlinks, we advise that you attempt to gain inbound links (links to your website) from other websites. Although if you own more than 2 websites, be careful of how you link them together as you may inadvertently create a link farm."
The statement would be (at least for me) more helpful if there were some examples of both the wrong way to link more than two owned sites and then an example or two of the correct, successful way to do it, or a reference link...
If you Google "link farms", you'll find a lot of sites with discussions about what may be interpreted as 'link farms' by the search engines and ranking organizations, e.g.:
Google Webmaster Tools:
https://support.google.com/webmasters/a … 6356?hl=en
Thank you, Per for the suggested reading. I had already read those links before I posted and many others on this topic over the years. There is a lot out there regarding what NOT to do.
With Website Insight, CoffeeCup has written a short 11 chapter help manual that has taken a very complex topic and provided a simple perspective for both the beginner and the more advanced user that matches the software in practical use.
My comment was more focused on the fact that the CoffeeCup content seemed to indicate there is an acceptable method of creating incoming links from multi sites that a person may own...but to be careful (of what specifically?) and to do it correctly and in an acceptable manner to the crawlers. (how, specifically?)
The last thing I want to do is something that classifies me as a "SEO-spammer". I have practiced a very conservitive policy over the years as I own a few sites and manage a fair number of other sites. I have always wondered where the "line" is and would not want to go past it. I understand I am in a unique position of being able to assist in ranking for myself and clients --- but definately not wanting to abuse the opportunity.
I was hoping to get past the... "be careful of how you link them together..., inadvertently...may" or "excessive" as I find these terms "subjective" and the crawlers seemed to be very "objective". I was looking more for Objective definations and samples.
I was hoping to get past the... "be careful of how you link them together..., inadvertently...may" or "excessive" as I find these terms "subjective" and the crawlers seemed to be very "objective". I was looking more for Objective definitions and samples.
From what you are saying about having read extensively about these topics over the years, I suspect you probably know more about it than many of the rest of us here, - certainly more than me!
I agree that it would be desirable to know the detailed, objective criteria used by the search engines to define (e.g.) 'link farming', but I'm afraid that would probably be a bit of a Holy Grail chase. The exact, detailed criteria and algorithms used by Google, et al, are kept as closely held secrets - and for good reasons. They are also subject to tweaks and change as soon as it appears that users have found ways to fool existing criteria.
My own interpretation of the way the SEs operate is that we are stuck with their published 'Good Practice' rules and the various experiences and interpretations of others that are available on the web.
I doubt that it would be possible or practical for Coffeecup to try to include more detailed, or more objective, rules than that in the help files. If they did, the 'objective' rules given would most likely be misleading, since they could not be comprehensive and might even be obsolete the moment they are published.
Have something to add? We’d love to hear it!
You must have an account to participate. Please Sign In Here, then join the conversation.